Bill O’Reilly

Hilarious MoveOn.org Video Rankles Right-Wing Prudes

Posted by on November 1, 2012 at 10:11 am. 5 Comments :

A new video produced by MoveOn.org with help from Michael Moore is causing some right-wingers to reach for the smelling salts. The rest are falling off their chairs with outrage and frothing criticisms. What has them so unraveled?

OMG! Old people cussing. The world has finally succumbed to Satan’s call. What better evidence is there that Armageddon is imminent?

This little video is generating thousands of views, and millions of guffaws, across the InterTubes, but in the realm of the right it is stirring nothing but anxiety and outrage. It has been featured on Fox News on at least three programs: America Live with Megyn Kelly, Hannity, and the O’Reilly Factor. All of these “news” alerts castigated the video with vitriol usually reserved for terrorist bombings or Obama sightings.

Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly both brought Fox News “Democrat” Kirsten Powers on to fulfill her mission of pretending to be a liberal while bashing her alleged allies. As the representative of the left she responded to Kelly’s leading questions saying “I don’t know why Michael Moore would do it, but even worse, I don’t know why MoveOn.org would be associated with it.”

Far worse, however, was Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo segment that he titled “Threats From The Far Left.” In his feverish denouncement of the video he said “So now the far left is threatening violence if President Obama loses the election.” Then he charged that President Obama is “culpable” for the video because he hasn’t condemned it. Really?

Someone needs to inform O’Reilly that this video is what we humans like to call “comedy.” It is not threatening any actual violence. For a demonstration of actual threats, just visit the Fox News community web site, Fox Nation. There you will find Fox fans literally yearning for Harry Reid to die; for Nancy Pelosi to have her skull crushed; cheering Arlen Specter’s death; advocating the assassination of President Obama. Since O’Reilly has never condemned these remarks he must be regarded as culpable for them.

The zealous acrimony expressed by these puritanical louts is almost as funny as the video. They clearly have a hard time discerning the difference between comedy and reality. And that may explain why they are unable to see the humor in this video but they can take Mitt Romney seriously.

ADDENDUM: For an idea of what the Fox News crowd thinks is funny, note this item posted on Fox Nation:

Fox Nation

The rating given to this article by the Fox Nationalists is “Funny.” Apparently they regard bad news for American businesses and workers as a joke. These cretins actually celebrate the hardships of fellow citizens. For the record, Fox failed to note that GM’s earnings statement was actually better than analysts expected and the stock rose almost 10% after the release. It was an indication of an improving economy. But that didn’t stop Fox from latching on to what they could spin as bad news and lifting the hearts of their America-hating audience.

Romney’s 47% Fiasco Fuels MSNBC Ratings Rout For Maddow, O’Donnell

Posted by on September 19, 2012 at 4:26 pm. 5 Comments :

Just like when the party conventions concluded and the DNC’s superior production boosted the audience for MSNBC’s primetime programming, the release of the crippling video of Mitt Romney dismissing half the nation as moochers is having a positive effect on MSNBC as well.

Rachel Maddow

On Monday, Rachel Maddow crushed Sean Hannity scoring 32% more viewers in the key advertiser demo of adults 25-54. Also, Chris Matthews’ Hardball beat Shepard Smith and Lawrence O’Donnell topped Greta Van Susteren.

Last night (Tuesday), Rachel again rolled over Hannity by an even larger margin (37%). And O’Donnell continued his dominance of Van Susteren. On both nights MSNBC took the total primetime time period from Fox News. These wins are significant in that they don’t occur very often. What’s more, they are routing Fox’s perennial winners without any special programming along the lines of a convention or debate. This is strictly news driven.

However, even more noteworthy is that Maddow’s demo numbers on Tuesday were the highest in all of the cable news primetime schedule. She even bested Bill O’Reilly by 3% despite the fact that O’Reilly’s guest was Jon Stewart who ought to have drawn in the younger viewers that ordinarily shun O’Reilly. With his devoted older-skewing viewers, plus the kids from Stewart’s heavily promoted guest appearance, O’Reilly should have run away with the night.

Maddow’s decisive victory suggests that there is something brewing in the cable news game. Viewers are responding to the editorial content of MSNBC and its most dynamic presenters. It’s still way too soon to make definitive statements or projections, but the gathering trends are promising.

Now all MSNBC has to do is capitalize on the new attention they are receiving and bring in new talent. Ed Schultz, who has not been contributing to this upswing, may be due for a makeover or a co-host. And there’s no need to repeat Hardball in the early evening when a new show could could broaden the audience. My long-shot pick: I’d give former Rep. Anthony Weiner a shot. If Eliot Spitzer can get a show on Current, Weiner should have a second chance too. He’s smart, experienced, and entertaining. And the publicity would help bring in a curious audience.

[Update] O’Donnell beat Van Susteren again on Wednesday.

Now Bill O’Reilly Needs To Apologize For Being An Idiot To The NAACP

Posted by on July 13, 2012 at 3:54 am. 4 Comments :

Bill O'ReillyLast March, Bill O’Reilly engaged in an on-air brawl with a constitutional expert who told him that ObamaCare would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Bullheaded Bill vehemently disagreed and and promised to replay the segment and apologize for being an idiot if he were wrong. Well, he was wrong, but still declined to make a genuine apology.

Tonight O’Reilly reprised his idiocy. During an argument with NAACP Washington bureau director Hilary Shelton. O’Reilly once again browbeat his guest with assertions of his warped version of reality. Shelton attempted to point out that the booing Romney endured was unique and a result of Romney’s disrespect of his audience.

Shelton: We’ve had Republican candidates for president at the NAACP before. As you know, four years ago, John McCain. As you know, when George Bush ran for president the first time…
O’Reilly: And McCain got jazzed too, by your crew.
Shelton: No he didn’t. Neither one of them did. That’s absolutely not true.
O’Reilly: He got jazzed by your crew and you know it.
Shelton: I hope you’ll go go back and actually play that on your show.
O’Reilly: We covered it. I remember covering it.
Shelton: What you’re saying is simply untrue.

Since O’Reilly already demonstrated his cowardice when he refused to apologize in the prior incident, it is unlikely he will will bother to show any more integrity this time. So for anyone who is interested, here is the speech that McCain gave at the 2008 NAACP conference. There was not a single negative reaction from the audience. No booing, no heckling, no “M-Fer, I want more iced tea.” No one got “jazzed.” But don’t hold your breath waiting for O’Reilly to apologize for, once again, being so desperately wrong.

The few hisses Romney suffered were entirely deserved. He seemed intent on baiting the audience. But this was not a pattern of behavior on the part of the conferees, as McCain’s video proves. Then again, McCain was a far more gracious guest. His demeanor was respectful as he solicited their support.

McCain: I’m here today as an admirer and a fellow American. An association that means more to me than any other. I’m a candidate for president who seeks your vote and hopes to earn it. But whether or not I win your support, I need your good will and your council.

Compare that to the condescending attitude Romney exhibited wherein he belittles his audience by declaring that the only reason they would not vote for him is because they are incapable of understanding how righteously awesome he really is.

Romney: I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African American families, you would vote for me for president.

Yeah, sure. It’s too bad that they’re just too stupid to see the real you. Or are they? Romney affirmed his scornful tone at a fundraiser he rushed off to following the NAACP event. When asked about the mixed reception he received he said of the NAACP crowd…

“I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy – more free stuff. But don’t forget nothing is really free.”

See? People who simply want to be able get affordable health care without being gouged by greedy insurers; who want to take care of their family’s needs without losing their homes or going bankrupt; who want an end to cancellations when they file claims; who don’t think that preexisting conditions should be an obstacle to getting coverage; to Romney these people are freeloaders looking for a handout.

So Romney should not be surprised if he encounters more booing or other public condemnations. He’s earned it. And O’Reilly should stop pretending that he knows anything. He doesn’t.

Bill O’Reilly Is An Idiot Whether Apologizes Or Not

Posted by on July 2, 2012 at 6:25 pm. 2 Comments :

Back in March, Bill O’Reilly had a contentious debate with Caroline Fredrickson, the president of the American Constitution Society, on the potential outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing on ObamaCare. Ms. Fredrickson presciently predicted that the bill would be upheld as constitutional and even noted specifically that the justification would come from the Constitution’s taxing authority. However, O’Reilly disagreed and concluded the segment by saying this:

“Ms. Frederickson, you’re going to lose, and your argument is specious. We appreciate you coming on. But this is absolutely a mandate. It’s absolutely a force. It’s absolutely police powers from the federal government, and it’s going to be 5 to 4. And if I’m wrong I will come on, and I will play — I will play your clip. And I will apologize for being an idiot. But I think you’re desperately wrong.”

Last week, following the Court’s decision, O’Reilly was on vacation, but he did call into his program and spoke with guest host Laura Ingraham. He said nothing about himself having been so desperately wrong. Today he returned and brought up the the incident in March, however, he did not apologize. Just prior to a disingenuous pseudo-apology, he declared that he is “not really sorry,” which cancels out anything he said afterwards. You don’t get credit for an apology if you precede it by saying that you’re not really sorry.

Rather, O’Reilly spent several minutes blaming CNN’s Howard Kurtz and Media Matters for – well, I couldn’t really figure what he was blaming them for. Apparently they were somehow responsible for his being a complete moron, and therefore he had nothing for which to apologize. He alleged that Kurtz was empowering Media Matters in some respect, and that…

“Kurtz does the bidding of Media Matters, and, I don’t know, maybe I should just ignore that and, as you say, move along down the highway, but it certainly disturbs me a little bit.”

And that was it. No actual apology. No admission that he was an idiot. No integrity in keeping his word. Just an obvious and pathetic dodge. He pointed fingers at others who had nothing to do with any of this and pretended that he never made a spectacularly stupid promise in support of his ill-informed prediction. It was a display of dishonesty and cowardice that befits someone like – well, like Bill O’Reilly. So I thought I’d help Billo out by saying what he is to chickenshit to say:

Bill O'Reilly is a Sorry Idiot

I think that about covers it.

Obamacare Upheld: Will Bill O’Reilly Keep His Promise To Apologize For Being An Idiot?

Posted by on June 28, 2012 at 9:10 am. 4 Comments :

The Supreme Court today upheld the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) today and there will be abundant coverage of this historic decision for the remainder of the day, of the week, and of this election year. Partisans from across the political spectrum will be parsing the decision for ways to portray it as either a victory or an incentive to motivate their followers.

But there is something that occurred in the months preceding this decision that deserves renewed attention. On March 26, 2012, Bill O’Reilly debated the healthcare act with Caroline Fredrickson, President of the American Constitution Society. After a tumultuous exchange that mainly exhibited O’Reilly’s arrogantly thuggish personality (transcript below), O’Reilly concluded by saying this:

“Ms. Frederickson, you’re going to lose, and your argument is specious. We appreciate you coming on. But this is absolutely a mandate. It’s absolutely a force. It’s absolutely police powers from the federal government, and it’s going to be 5 to 4. And if I’m wrong I will come on, and I will play — I will play your clip. And I will apologize for being an idiot. But I think you’re desperately wrong.”

Bill O'Reilly on ObamacareWill O’Reilly keep that promise? Although there are incidents far too numerous to mention wherein O’Reilly proves that he’s an idiot, there are few times that he’s committed to admitting it himself. In addition to his debate with Fredrickson, O’Reilly also did a Talking Points Memo segment asserting with absolute certainty that the mandate would be ruled unconstitutional. He should not be allowed to forget his mistakes and his promises. Email him here to ask him to keep his word.

On a side note: After the long awaited decision was announced, Fox News cut away from their coverage to air an interview of News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch by his sycophantic lackey, Neil Cavuto. There was nothing particularly newsworthy disclosed in the segment. It appeared to be simply a distraction from the Supreme Court’s far more consequential news. That will likely be the tactical approach that Fox takes for the remainder of the day. They will attempt to downplay an event that they previously trumpeted as the most important Supreme Court decision in decades. They will dodge and weave and misconstrue as they plaster the air with dissenting views from Republican politicians and pundits. The headline, for the time being, will be “Obama’s health care tax increase survives.” And as soon as the House vote on holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of congress occurs, that will become the headline.

Here is the transcript of the O’Reilly Factor interview with Caroline Frederickson. Note how precisely she predicted the Court’s decision that the act would be upheld under the taxing authority of the Congress. Note also O’Reilly’s brutish incivility as he threatens to cut off the interview if she didn’t comply with his demands to answer questions the way he wanted her to.

O’REILLY: Name one thing, one thing that the federal government forces you to buy. One.

FREDRICKSON: Well, let me first correct that —

O’REILLY: Ms. Frederickson.

FREDRICKSON: No, no. I want to correct you.

O’REILLY: Look, my — my opinion is my opinion. Your opinion is yours. I don’t want to be corrected. Ms. Frederickson please answer the simple question. We don’t have all night.

FREDRICKSON: The legislation — you have to let me answer.

O’REILLY: Are you going to answer this question or not? If you’re not going to answer, I’ll abort the segment right now.

FREDRICKSON: The legislation does not require people to buy health insurance.

O’REILLY: Of course it does.

FREDRICKSON: It imposes a penalty for those who don’t.

O’REILLY: You want to play the semantic game?

FREDRICKSON: Forces people to buy in the form of a tax.

O’REILLY: That’s a police power, OK? To impose any penalty is a police power.

FREDRICKSON: Tax power. And it’s designed completely within the rational scope of the legislation —

O’REILLY: No. Ms. Frederickson. This is not —

FREDRICKSON: — to encourage people to buy health insurance.

O’REILLY: This is becoming absurd. It’s police power if you punish someone for not doing anything. Sounds absurd.

FREDRICKSON: Now, you’ve got to let me talk if you’re going to invite me on your show.

O’REILLY: No, I don’t have to let you talk if you’re not answering the question. Because you’re dodging the question. I’ll go back.

FREDRICKSON: No. It’s actually —

O’REILLY: Name one thing the federal government compels you to buy. One thing.

FREDRICKSON: Well, let me say that under the Militia Act of 1792, people were compelled to buy muskets and powder.

O’REILLY: What act was that?

FREDRICKSON: This doesn’t require — The Militia Act. This doesn’t actually require people to buy health insurance. And I think it would be good if you read the legislation.

O’REILLY: I did read the legislation.

FREDRICKSON: It imposes a penalty. And a penalty is different from – –

O’REILLY: That’s compelling something to do something if you’re going to punish them for not doing it.

FREDRICKSON: No. It’s a tax. Essentially, people have to pay a very modest amount — it’s about $95 a year — if they choose not to buy health insurance.

But it’s part of a scheme in which Congress rationally chose to build a national market for health insurance and cover the uninsured.

O’REILLY: Ms. Frederickson, you’re going to lose, and your argument is specious. We appreciate you coming on. But this is absolutely a mandate. It’s absolutely a force. It’s absolutely police powers from the federal government, and it’s going to be 5 to 4.

And if I’m wrong I will come on, and I will play — I will play your clip. And I will apologize for being an idiot. But I think you’re desperately wrong.

FREDRICKSON: All right. Well, I look forward to it.

She was right, Billo. What say you?

{Update] This evening on the O’Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham was in at the anchor desk because Bill O’Reilly was on vacation. Well, that would have been the perfect dodge for O’Reilly to avoid keeping his word and hoping that by Monday everybody would have forgotten.

However, Ingraham immediately announced that O’Reilly was on the phone from North Carolina to comment on this momentous news event. He spent ten minutes of his precious vacation time bashing the decision, the President and, on another subject, Attorney General Eric Holder. But he never mentioned that he is an idiot. Somehow, the fact that he is an idiot slipped his idiotic mind. I’m shocked!

Glenn Beck Reviews Black-Themed Obama Campaign Ad

Posted by on June 13, 2012 at 10:59 am. 3 Comments :

If you were looking for an authoritative analysis of an Obama campaign advertisement targeting an African-American constituency, who better to consult than homeboy and O.G. (Original German), Glenn Beck?

That’s who Bill O’Reilly turned to last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and he got his money’s worth. The segment included pleadings from Beck for O’Reilly to use the “M” word (Marxist) about Obama. O’Reilly giggled flirtatiously but succumbed only so far as to declare Obama the most liberal president in America’s history (which is news to liberals).

After listening to the new ad, the pair expressed their shock upon seeing an overt appeal to a targeted demographic group, something they seem to think never happens in advertising.

Beck: I’ve never heard anything like that, Bill.
O’Reilly: In a campaign ad, I haven’t either. I would love to see Mitt Romney’s backup singers though. They probably look like the Osmonds.
Beck: Here’s the problem with that ad. I mean it’s two-fold. In that ad they talk about, you know, we’ve got your back, Mr. President. Isn’t the President supposed to have our back? Isn’t he supposed to be that guy that insures that he’s watching our liberty and our life so nobody comes and kills our family or kills us, and nobody comes and scoops us up off the street in the middle of the night?

First of all, I find it interesting that O’Reilly would surmise that Romney’s backup singers would look like the Osmonds, a quintessentially white family of Mormons. I wouldn’t argue with that, but it’s Beck’s commentary that really demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and hypocrisy.

Beck seems to have missed entirely that the ad is a litany of all the ways in which Obama “has our back,” by enumerating the policies he is pursuing. The only thing that Beck hears is the Motown-like chorus. Even worse, Beck seems to be confusing the role of the president with the role of a bodyguard. His assertion that the President is supposed to protect us from some unidentified assailants is downright looney, however, it fits nicely into Beck’s patented formula of fear mongering. To Beck there is no dark corner of the room that isn’t filled with stalking demons.

Glenn Beck

Seeing as how Beck is also one of the biggest proponents of right-wing criticisms of the so-called “nanny state,” it is curious that he has now assigned the President the responsibility for policing our neighborhoods and protecting us from whoever it is that Beck imagines is threatening to “scoop us up off the street in the middle of the night.” That duty might distract the President from trivial matters like the economy, jobs, and foreign affairs. It might also piss off Spiderman who will surely regard it as an intrusion into his jurisdiction.

Watching O’Reilly and Beck analyze an Obama ad aimed at African Americans is not unlike watching Rick Santorum and Pat Robertson reviewing the DVD release of “Brokeback Mountain.” There is very little of value that one could extract from their analysis. But what’s truly frightening is that Fox’s viewers will sop up their bile and regard it as credible. At least until they are scooped up off the street in the middle of the night.

Bill O’Reilly’s Dementia Shapes His Definition Of Fox News

Posted by on June 12, 2012 at 10:56 am. 4 Comments :

Bill O'ReillyOn the O’Reilly Factor last night Bill O’Reilly engaged in a discussion of media bias with right-wing “Slobbering” author, Bernie Goldberg. During the conversation O’Reilly launched into a description of the network that has employed him for the past sixteen years. His assessment is typical of the tunnel-blindness that infects Fox News:

“Fox News, I mean, you have a network that basically is different from the establishment network that Mr. [Chris] Matthews was talking about. Takes a much more traditional approach. It has conservative hosts on that have programs. That’s unheard of in the other precincts. Never happens, never has happened, all right — I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, that description.”

First of all, O’Reilly is correct in saying that Fox News is different. There has never before been a national news network that was so closely aligned with the interests of a political party. Fox News is so ingrained into the GOP that they broadcast Republican talking points straight from RNC memos – typos and all.

As for O’Reilly’s assertion that it is “unheard of” that other networks ever employed conservative hosts, is he serious, or seriously delusional? I, for one, would like to disagree with his ludicrous claim that conservatives hosting programs on other networks “never has happened.” And I have actual evidence to back it up.

Currently on MSNBC (you know, the socialist news network) there is a three hour long morning program hosted by Joe Scarborough, a conservative Republican, former congressman from Florida. Can you imagine Fox giving over their three hour morning block to Alan Grayson? MSNBC was also the home of conservative hosts like Michael Savage, Oliver North, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham. Three of those are now Fox News employees. At CNN (you know, the communist news Network), they have had numerous conservatives hosting programs as well. Remember Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck? Those last two later jumped ship for shows on Fox.

So obviously O’Reilly is either lying or in dire need of medical attention. How else could he possibly have missed this parade of conservatives on other news networks? Conversely, it is Fox News that has a one-sided ideological bias. They have never had a solo liberal host in their entire history. O’Reilly’s characterization of the media is not only wrong, it’s 180 degrees from reality. Which explains his success on the network that specializes in news reporting that is 180 degrees from reality and the polar opposite of the truth.

Bill O’Reilly Accuses Obama Of Political Terrorism

Posted by on May 15, 2012 at 2:09 am. 16 Comments :

Now that Glenn Beck has left Fox News and slithered off to the obscurity he so richly deserves, Bill O’Reilly is stepping up to fill the role of frothing lunatic that the network has missed since Beck’s departure.

Monday night’s program featured an interview with Frank VanderSloot, a wealthy businessman who is the finance chair of Mitt Romney’s campaign for president. VanderSloot has been the subject of a Murdoch Media blitz to defend him from what they have called a smear campaign. In fact, VanderSloot was merely identified factually as a major Romney supporter and his history of ultra-conservativism and anti-gay activism was truthfully reported. He has received the sort of attention that any prominent political operative might expect to receive.

However, in conservative circles that is regarded as something akin to McCarthyism. That’s the characterization that has been disseminated in Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and Fox Nation. And now O’Reilly is chiming in with the most absurd and irresponsible rhetoric to date. Here is the exchange between O’Reilly and VanderSloot:

O’Reilly: Some believe this is economic terrorism…not economic, political terrorism. That targeting a business man like you, running an honest business, because of your freedom to donate to who you want to donate to, but try to ruin you personally and professionally, that’s terrorism. Political terrorism. Do you see it that way?

VanderSloot: Well, I have these two questions, Bill, to President Obama. Why did you publish a list? […] Then the second question is, who is supposed to receive the message? Is it only the liberal press that’s supposed to go after these folks, or is it also the agencies that he runs, that he’s in charge of, and that report to him and want to please him? […]

O’Reilly: They want to intimidate you from giving any money to the campaign, and others like you who might be thinking of it. Business people go “I’m not gonna do that. They might put my name on the web and I’ll lose customers. So I’m not gonna do it.” But that’s terrorism.

VanderSloot: I suppose it is.

Just to be clear, what O’Reilly and VanderSloot are describing as terrorism is actually just disclosure. They believe that transparency in political donations by powerful corporations and wealthy individuals is an unwarranted burden. They would much prefer to be able to buy elections and influence politicians in complete secrecy. And even though donors to candidates of both parties are subject to the same disclosure rules, only Republicans consider such requirements the equivalent of terrorism.

Aside from the obvious absurdity of attacking open and honest political disclosures as terrorism, this sort of discussion also trivializes the very real horrors experienced by actual victims of violence perpetrated in the name of intimidation and fear. O’Reilly and VanderSloot should be ashamed of themselves, but instead used the occasion of this madness to solicit donations for Romney. They closed the segment by celebrating VanderSloot’s new donation of $100,000 to Romney’s SuperPAC.

Seriously, when is the Federal Elections Commission going to start monitoring Fox News for its in-kind contributions to Republicans? The network is a non-stop ad for the GOP.

Bill O’Reilly And Jesse Watters Lie About Van Jones

Posted by on May 2, 2012 at 2:23 am. 8 Comments :

Bill O'ReillyLast week Bill O’Reilly interviewed his Fox News colleague Jesse Watters about a video Watters had produced wherein he ambushed Van Jones at a green energy convention. The video itself was a frivolous exercise that succeeded mainly in demonstrating how easy it was for Jones to make Watters look foolish.

More interesting was a part of the exchange between O’Reilly and Watters that included a wholly unfounded attribution by Watters that even O’Reilly found unbelievable:

Watters: He [Van Jones] actually said that the EPA has saved more lives than the department of defense and that Republicans want to poison children.
O’Reilly: Jones said that Republicans want to poison children?
Watters: Yes, he did.
O’Reilly: Was there any reason that the GOP wants to commit homicide?
Watters: Jobs. Poisoning children creates jobs.
O’Reilly: Now wait a minute. This guy was working in the Obama administration. He actually said that the GOP wants to poison children?
Watters: We have it on tape.
O’Reilly: Alright. I want to see that tape on Reality Check on Monday.
Watters: OK.

Well, Monday came and went and there was no video. O’Reilly broadcast his Reality Check segment on Tuesday and there was no video. It should come as no surprise that O’Reilly failed to air the video and didn’t even bother to address the fact that he was breaking his promise to do so. The reason for that is simple: There is no video of Jones saying what Watters alleged he said.

The truth is that Jones never said that Republicans “want to poison children.” He responded to accusations that the EPA kills jobs by noting that the EPA actually saves tens of thousands of lives every year by controlling toxic emissions and pollution. Jones suggested that critics be asked “How many American children are you willing to poison per job?” It was a speculative question meant to stimulate discussion about the relative merits of environmental regulation, not an indictment of the GOP as wannabe children poisoners.

This is yet another example of Fox News making irresponsible and dishonest allegations and failing to back them up with evidence. These phony “journalists” have no problem shamelessly making false statements publicly and then simply letting the whole matter drop and hoping their glassy-eyed audience forgets the part where they promised to provide proof. And judging from the non-reaction from the Fox audience, forgetting is something they do willingly.

Fox News And Conservatives Have Totally Lost Their Friggin Minds

Posted by on May 1, 2012 at 11:33 am. 30 Comments :

Obama Derangement Syndrome has spread to infect every cell of the conservative brain. The depth of their sickness has finally become so severe that it negates any hope of recovery.

The “Moonie” Washington Times published an article with the headline: “New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism.” There is nothing new about the rabid right’s delusional assertions that President Obama is a Marxist, socialist, Kenyan, Muslim, Anti-Christ, who is conspiring with communists, Al Qaeda, the New Black Panthers (all four of them), and Sesame Street to subvert democracy, indoctrinate our children, and deflower our women. But this particular incident is rooted so firmly in dementia that it deserves closer attention and merciless ridicule.

The problem cited by the Washington Times, and picked up by Fox Nation and Breitbart among others, is that the word “Forward,” used prominently in a new Obama campaign video (posted below), is inherently wicked and representative of dastardly evildoers seeking to establish a tyrannical, Islamic, atheist, caliphate throughout the world – or something. The article states that…

“The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, ‘Forward’ — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism. Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name ‘Forward!'”

So there you have it. By using a word in the English dictionary that means “ahead, onward,” the Obama camp has revealed their commitment to worldwide socialist rebellion. Never mind that the associations cited in the conservative press are a hundred years old, or that the word has been used in innumerable other contexts before and after those associations. For instance, the pinko Ronald Reagan Society at his alma mater, Eureka College, uses the phrase “Reagan Forward.” Even Fox News used it in their on-air promos:

Fox News Forward

Initially, when the Obama video was released, the cry from the right was that the campaign had lifted the slogan from MSNBC which uses the phrase “Lean Forward.” That allegation was carried by conservatives from Fox News contributor Michele Malkin to the New York Post to Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze, and others. Apparently that didn’t stir up enough bile among the right-wing faithful, so they had to escalate the attack to suggest this affiliation with ancient enemies.

Ironically, it was Fox News who took great offense to an allegation by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog late last year, that Mitt Romney’s campaign had adopted a slogan previously used by the Ku Klux Klan:

Romney KKK

On several occasions Romney included a phrase in his stump speech that closely resembled one that the KKK used frequently in the 1920s: “Keep America American.” Subsequently there was some debate as to whether Romney actually said “Keep America America,” a small difference of the single letter “n” at the end. The outrage from the right was immediate and fierce. How could those awful liberals insinuate that Romney was a Klan member? Fox News was all over the story with even their top program, The O’Reilly Factor, devoting segments to it.

Of course, nobody ever implied that Romney was a Klan member. They merely noted that his campaign had not sufficiently researched the language that they were making such a prominent part of their strategy. And they made the additional point that, if it were a Democrat whose slogan could be tied to some past perceived ignominy, Republicans would have feasted on the gaffe. Aravosis seems prescient in retrospect for having facetiously said…

“In an era in which it’s apparently okay for Republicans to accuse President Obama of being a socialist, I guess we now need to ask if Mitt Romney is a Ku Klux Klansman. Not whether Romney inadvertently is using the KKK’s number one slogan from the 1920s on the stump, no, the Republicans would say, if this were a Democrat, that clearly the candidate was a closet member of the KKK.”

Now that speculation has been made real by a conservative effort to advance their smear campaign against Obama. And their is nothing facetious about the right’s belief that the President is a socialist. When an anchor on MSNBC reported the story about Romney’s slogan, the right swung back hard in retaliation. MSNBC then issued a quick and thorough apology on the air. And that’s where the comparison ends. The right proudly and obstinately clings to their abhorrent missteps – probably because they aren’t missteps, but deliberate slander.

Conservatives have been making unfounded claims that the President is a socialist since before his inauguration. These were not merely observations about similarities in rhetoric, but outright accusations that they assert as fact. And now they are engaging in the exact same tactic that just last December they condemned as character assassination.

This is about as good an example of the ethical vacancy of the modern right as there will ever be. Their fixation on inventing new methods of tarnishing the President has devolved to condemning him for using the English language. So today the word “forward” is off-limits. Tomorrow will it be “progress” or “justice” or “the” or [fill in the blank].

Seriously…these people have totally lost their friggin minds.

[Update] Fox Business Network joins the club castigating forwardness. Tonight Lou Dobbs jumped in with the added attraction of one of Glenn Beck’s surplus blackboards.